AMD Ryzen 5 240 vs Intel Core Ultra 3 205 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 and Intel Core Ultra 3 205 take fundamentally different approaches to performance. The data shows a clear split: Intel wins 11 of the 15 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, while AMD secures 4 wins. However, the nature of those victories is more instructive than the raw count. The Ryzen 5 240 excels in specific integer-heavy and data-processing tasks, while the Core Ultra 3 205 dominates in multi-threaded rendering, floating-point math, and single-threaded responsiveness. The AMD part is a mobile processor with a 45 W TDP and a Zen 4 architecture, whereas the Intel chip is a desktop part with a 57 W TDP based on Arrow Lake. These differences in design goals manifest directly in the benchmark results, making the choice between them dependent on the workload.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 claims its victories in tasks that reward its particular cache hierarchy and core configuration. Its most significant win is in PassMark integer math, where it scores 73,189 against Intel's 54,755, a delta of 33.7%. This is a massive margin for a synthetic integer test, indicating that the AMD chip handles branch-heavy, general-purpose code more efficiently. It also wins in data compression with a score of 267,963 versus 260,651, a 2.8% edge, and in random string sorting with 32,385 versus 31,083, a 4.2% margin. The final AMD win is in Cinebench R15 multi-core, scoring 2,078 against Intel's 2,001, a modest 3.8% lead. These wins suggest the Ryzen 5 240 is tuned for database-style operations, file compression, and legacy rendering workloads where its 12 threads provide an advantage.

The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 wins everywhere else, and often by substantial margins. Its most dominant performance is in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 268 versus AMD's 70, a delta of 73.9%. This is a test that heavily favors Intel's architecture. It also crushes AMD in floating-point math, scoring 75,136 versus 45,301, a 39.7% lead, and in physics simulation with 2,016 versus 1,060, a 47.4% margin. The Intel chip is also significantly faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core, scoring 19,856 versus 13,013, a 34.5% advantage, and in single-core tests across both Cinebench and PassMark. In Cinebench R23 single-core, Intel leads with 2,803 versus 1,742, a 37.9% gap. The data indicates the Core Ultra 3 205 is the superior choice for rendering, scientific computing, and any workload that leverages SIMD instructions or heavy multi-threading.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on different foundry nodes and microarchitectures, which explains the benchmark chasm. The AMD Ryzen 5 240 uses TSMC's 4 nm process and packs 25,000 million transistors into a 178 mm² die. Its architecture is Zen 4, codenamed Hawk Point, and it is designed for the AMD Socket FP8 mobile platform. It features 6 cores and 12 threads, relying on simultaneous multithreading to fill execution units. The cache layout is notable: 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 16 MB of L3. This gives a total of 6 MB of L2, which is smaller per-core than Intel's allocation.

The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 uses TSMC's 3 nm process, with 17,800 million transistors on a larger 243 mm² die. It is based on the Arrow Lake architecture and fits the Intel Socket 1851 desktop platform. It has 8 cores but only 8 threads, meaning no hyper-threading. This is a critical design difference: Intel relies on more physical cores, while AMD uses fewer cores with SMT. Intel's cache is substantially larger per core: 192 KB of L1, 3 MB of L2, and 15 MB of shared L3. This gives a total of 24 MB of L2, which is four times AMD's aggregate L2 capacity. The larger per-core cache likely contributes to Intel's single-threaded dominance.

Memory support differs as well. Both support DDR5 and dual-channel memory, but Intel's memory bandwidth is rated higher at 102.4 GB/s versus AMD's 89.6 GB/s. The PCIe implementation also diverges: AMD offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while Intel provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Neither processor supports ECC memory. The integrated graphics differ: AMD uses a Radeon 760M, while Intel uses an Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU. The Intel part carries a launch MSRP of $140, while the AMD part has no recorded launch price. The production status for both is active, with the AMD releasing in January 2025 and the Intel in July 2025.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest Intel win is in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 268 against AMD's 70. This 73.9% delta is the largest of any test and highlights a fundamental architectural advantage in integer division and loop handling. The second-largest margin is in floating-point math, where Intel's 75,136 beats AMD's 45,301 by 39.7%. This is a clear indicator that the Core Ultra 3 205 is better suited for scientific and engineering workloads that rely on heavy FPU usage.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, Intel's 19,856 versus AMD's 13,013 represents a 34.5% lead. This is a surprise given that AMD has 12 threads versus Intel's 8, but the Intel chip's higher clock speeds and larger cache overcome the thread deficit. The single-core results reinforce this: Intel leads Cinebench R23 single-core by 37.9% (2,803 versus 1,742) and PassMark single-thread by 19.7% (4,575 versus 3,675). The physics test shows a 47.4% Intel advantage (2,016 versus 1,060), which aligns with its multi-threaded strength.

AMD's counter-attacks are concentrated in integer math. The 33.7% win in PassMark integer math (73,189 versus 54,755) is the largest AMD margin. Data compression shows a narrow 2.8% win (267,963 versus 260,651), and random string sorting shows a 4.2% win (32,385 versus 31,083). In Cinebench R15 multi-core, AMD wins by 3.8% (2,078 versus 2,001), likely because this older test scales well with thread count and does not stress the newer instruction sets as heavily. Intel also wins in data encryption by 15.6% (18,772 versus 15,849) and extended instructions by 10.5% (22,578 versus 20,201).

The average benchmark scores reflect the overall picture. AMD's average is 33,542, placing it in the 84th percentile of all CPUs, while Intel's average is 31,473, in the 82nd percentile. This is counterintuitive given Intel's benchmark wins, but it is explained by AMD's massive integer math score, which skews its average upward. AMD's nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H (delta 0%) and the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS (delta -0.4%), while Intel's nearest rivals include the Intel Core 7 240H (delta 0%) and the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX (delta -0.1%). This shows both chips are competitive within their respective performance tiers.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear performance hierarchy, but the correct choice depends on the target workload. The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 is the dominant processor for rendering, physics simulation, and floating-point heavy tasks. Its 34.5% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 39.7% lead in floating-point math make it the obvious pick for 3D modeling, video encoding, and scientific computing. Its single-threaded advantage, a 19.7% lead in PassMark single-thread, also makes it better for general desktop responsiveness and lightly threaded applications like web browsing or office suites.

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 is not without merit, but its advantages are narrower and more specialized. Its 33.7% win in integer math and 2.8% win in data compression suggest it handles general-purpose code and file archiving tasks well. However, these wins do not offset the large deficits in other areas. The AMD chip also has a lower TDP of 45 W versus Intel's 57 W, which matters for mobile battery life, but the Intel part is a desktop processor where power draw is less critical. The Intel part is the better all-around performer in the recorded data, while the AMD part serves a niche for integer-heavy workloads in a mobile form factor.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core rendering?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 is significantly faster. It scores 19,856 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus AMD's 13,013, a 34.5% advantage. It also wins in PassMark multithread with 26,167 versus 22,658, a 13.4% lead.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 5 240 win any benchmark by a large margin?

A: Yes, it wins PassMark integer math with a score of 73,189 versus Intel's 54,755, a 33.7% delta. This is its largest recorded win. It also leads in data compression by 2.8% and random string sorting by 4.2%.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 has 8 cores and 8 threads. AMD uses simultaneous multithreading, while Intel does not.

Q: What is the single-threaded performance difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 leads in every single-thread test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2,803 versus 1,742, a 37.9% lead. In PassMark single-thread, it scores 4,575 versus 3,675, a 19.7% lead.

Q: Which processor has a higher memory bandwidth rating?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 has a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 is rated at 89.6 GB/s. Both support DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 240 has an average benchmark score of 33,542, placing it in the 84th percentile. The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 has an average of 31,473, placing it in the 82nd percentile. Despite Intel winning more individual tests, AMD's high integer math score raises its average.